• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Climate Change(d)?

Point me to the correlation. I have not seen nor do I understand there to be a strong connection between solar activity and global temperature rise. Upper atmosphere temperatures, which do often correlate with solar activity, are not the same nor do they have the same inputs as tropospheric temperatures.

I linked a solar study from Max Planck Institute above (post 93). I also included a chart of solar activity from that study that could easily be confused for the IPCC global temperature chart if someone doesn't look at the labels for the axis. If two graphs covering thousands of years can easily be confused then the correlation is obvious. Note: correlation does not mean causation but such close correlation over thousands of years does certainly suggest a strong indication of causation.

Correlations:
Where the IPCC chart shows global temperatures higher, the Max Planck study shows solar activity higher. Where the IPCC chart shows global temperatures lower, the Max Planck study shows solar activity lower. And this trend was over thousands of years, including the current up-spike in both.

Ok. I’ll take a look and run it by the climate scientists I know to get some opinions.

Edited to add: I see now that the article is from 2004, so I’m sure there are some opinions and potential updates since then.

Also, no doubt that solar activity can drive the climate as the solar irradiance is the power input. However, my understanding is that over recent history there is no correlation between TSI and the sharply rising global temperatures we are seeing.
 
Point me to the correlation. I have not seen nor do I understand there to be a strong connection between solar activity and global temperature rise. Upper atmosphere temperatures, which do often correlate with solar activity, are not the same nor do they have the same inputs as tropospheric temperatures.

I linked a solar study from Max Planck Institute above (post 93). I also included a chart of solar activity from that study that could easily be confused for the IPCC global temperature chart if someone doesn't look at the labels for the axis. If two graphs covering thousands of years can easily be confused then the correlation is obvious. Note: correlation does not mean causation but such close correlation over thousands of years does certainly suggest a strong indication of causation.
Is it?

They didn't seem to think so, contemporarily.
article said:
On the other hand, the rather similar trends of solar activity and terrestrial temperature during the last centuries (with the notable exception of the last 20 years) indicates that the relation between the Sun and climate remains a challenge for further research.
That was nearly 20 years ago (2004 article), and we can plop the last 20 years onto those 20 years. Sun activity was quite low the last solar cycle, notably lower than in the 70s, yet the Earth has continued warming.

We know that CO2 traps energy from the Sun. And we know that when you add energy to a system, you increase its disorder.
 
Point me to the correlation. I have not seen nor do I understand there to be a strong connection between solar activity and global temperature rise. Upper atmosphere temperatures, which do often correlate with solar activity, are not the same nor do they have the same inputs as tropospheric temperatures.

I linked a solar study from Max Planck Institute above (post 93). I also included a chart of solar activity from that study that could easily be confused for the IPCC global temperature chart if someone doesn't look at the labels for the axis. If two graphs covering thousands of years can easily be confused then the correlation is obvious. Note: correlation does not mean causation but such close correlation over thousands of years does certainly suggest a strong indication of causation.

Correlations:
Where the IPCC chart shows global temperatures higher, the Max Planck study shows solar activity higher. Where the IPCC chart shows global temperatures lower, the Max Planck study shows solar activity lower. And this trend was over thousands of years, including the current up-spike in both.

Ok. I took a deeper look at this link and the papers that it cites and also at some more recent papers that cite those papers. I think the conclusion is best summarized by the following, from a paper entitled “Correlation between total solar irradiance and global land temperatures for the last 120 years” by Varonov and Shopov (2016):

These results show the substantially higher influence of the total solar irradiance on the global land temperatures before 1970. The decline is this influence during the last 40 years could be attributed to the increasing concentration of anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere.

You can dig up the paper (free online) for more details but the gist is that in the past, prior to when there was a substantially higher concentration of CO2 from man-made sources, warming was very well correlated with solar output, as would be expected due to the Sun being the source of heat for our planet. So, the idea that over thousands of years there was a good correlation makes sense, as you say.

However, TSI has not risen in the past forty years and thus is no longer correlated with the warming. This supports the conclusion that the increased greenhouse gases is trapping the sun’s energy and causing the warming.

Furthermore, looking back at one of the citations in your link, I see that in 2003 Solanki’s JGR paper, entitled “Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970” (also cited in the above paper I mention), came to this conclusion to the titular question:

This comparison [data from 1856-1970 versus data from 1970-1999] shows without requiring any recourse to modeling that since roughly 1970 the solar influence on climate (through the channels considered here) cannot have been dominant. In particular, the Sun cannot have contributed more than 30% to the steep temperatures increase that has taken place since then, irrespective of which of the three considered channels is the dominant one determining Sun-climate interactions: tropospheric hearing caused by changes in total solar irradiance, stratospheric chemistry influenced by changes in the solar UV spectrum, or cloud coverage affected by the cosmic Ray flux.

This reflects the generally accepted result that global warming is not caused by the Sun. Unless someone comes up with a different mechanism that is not usually considered in climate models and can strongly correlate that with current warming tends while reconciling it with past climatic cycles I don’t see that conclusion changing.

I now see that this earlier paper is actually making a more strongly worded conclusion than even the more recent paper I first quoted.
 
You have an interesting method of of reaching an "understanding" of nature.... Look for someone's opinion that agrees with what you want to believe that can do a lot of hand-waving to reach "absolute certainty" of reality.

I can think of five possible ways to account for the correlation... there, of course, could be others.
You seem to be arguing for 1 while I lean toward 4.

1. It is simply thousands of years of continuous coincidences.
2. Earth's climate effects solar activity.
3. There is a, as yet unknown, cause that effects both solar activity and Earth's climate.
4. Solar activity has an effect on Earth's climate.
5. Max Plank faked their solar study as a prank.
Some of these can obviously be ignored as absurd even though addressing the question, others not.

ETA:
It just hit me that you seem to think that I am arguing that solar activity is the ONLY climate driver. Hardly... there are several climate drivers, some known and quite possibly some not yet known. The problem is to try to understand the relative effect of each of the drivers at any given period of time.
 
Man, so Shadowy Man took the paper you linked to, went through it, went through some more papers (linked as well), provided an assessment, and your response to take it personally and responsd with a dickish post?

Also, item 5 seems to indicate you didn't bother to read your own citation.
 
You have an interesting method of of reaching an "understanding" of nature.... Look for someone's opinion that agrees with what you want to believe that can do a lot of hand-waving to reach "absolute certainty" of reality.

I can think of five possible ways to account for the correlation... there, of course, could be others.
You seem to be arguing for 1 while I lean toward 4.

1. It is simply thousands of years of continuous coincidences.
2. Earth's climate effects solar activity.
3. There is a, as yet unknown, cause that effects both solar activity and Earth's climate.
4. Solar activity has an effect on Earth's climate.
5. Max Plank faked their solar study as a prank.
Some of these can obviously be ignored as absurd even though addressing the question, others not.

ETA:
It just hit me that you seem to think that I am arguing that solar activity is the ONLY climate driver. Hardly... there are several climate drivers, some known and quite possibly some not yet known. The problem is to try to understand the relative effect of each of the drivers at any given period of time.

I honestly don’t understand your response. There is clearly a correlation that has lasted for a long time. Neither I nor the papers I cited disagree with that. However that correlation is broken after 1970 and the researchers determined that the most likely reason for that is that the presence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases becomes the dominant cause for the recent steep rise of global temperatures. They’ve even quantified that as per the quoted text. If you have a problem with the papers I cited you can read them and argue specific points, but the second paper I cited was actually a source for the information *you* linked to in the first place, so I don’t understand your issue with it.

I don’t know what you’re arguing for, now. I have said already a couple of times that solar activity is a climate driver and cited papers that attest to that, including the paper you effectively cited, too. I am just saying that climate scientists don’t believe that solar activity is driving the current spate of warming. It seemed in your first post that you were implying it might be because it has in the past and that’s why you linked to the MP news article. I’m sorry if that’s an incorrect interpretation of your original post.

And I don’t believe that I said or presented anything as “absolute certainty”.
 
You have an interesting method of of reaching an "understanding" of nature.... Look for someone's opinion that agrees with what you want to believe that can do a lot of hand-waving to reach "absolute certainty" of reality.

I can think of five possible ways to account for the correlation... there, of course, could be others.
You seem to be arguing for 1 while I lean toward 4.

1. It is simply thousands of years of continuous coincidences.
2. Earth's climate effects solar activity.
3. There is a, as yet unknown, cause that effects both solar activity and Earth's climate.
4. Solar activity has an effect on Earth's climate.
5. Max Plank faked their solar study as a prank.
Some of these can obviously be ignored as absurd even though addressing the question, others not.

ETA:
It just hit me that you seem to think that I am arguing that solar activity is the ONLY climate driver. Hardly... there are several climate drivers, some known and quite possibly some not yet known. The problem is to try to understand the relative effect of each of the drivers at any given period of time.

I honestly don’t understand your response. There is clearly a correlation that has lasted for a long time. Neither I nor the papers I cited disagree with that. However that correlation is broken after 1970 and the researchers determined that the most likely reason for that is that the presence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases becomes the dominant cause for the recent steep rise of global temperatures. They’ve even quantified that as per the quoted text. If you have a problem with the papers I cited you can read them and argue specific points, but the second paper I cited was actually a source for the information *you* linked to in the first place, so I don’t understand your issue with it.

I don’t know what you’re arguing for, now. I have said already a couple of times that solar activity is a climate driver and cited papers that attest to that, including the paper you effectively cited, too. I am just saying that climate scientists don’t believe that solar activity is driving the current spate of warming. It seemed in your first post that you were implying it might be because it has in the past and that’s why you linked to the MP news article. I’m sorry if that’s an incorrect interpretation of your original post.

And I don’t believe that I said or presented anything as “absolute certainty”.
I am saying that there are several climate drivers effecting the climate at the same time. CO2 has became more prominent but that doesn't mean that solar activity stopped being a major driver. The fact (according to Max Planck) that we are currently experiencing the greatest period of solar activity in the last 8000 years should mean that solar activity should have more effect on climate than it did previously. Yes, CO2 is likely a responsible driver for our current high global temperatures but then the exceptional level of solar activity is also a likely driver... both together is a double whammy. And then there may be even more drivers that contribute either positively or negatively... like the increased volcanism, planetary albedo, aerosols, etc.

The start of the scree was rebutting the popular idea that CO2 is the sole driver of climate change.
 
You have an interesting method of of reaching an "understanding" of nature.... Look for someone's opinion that agrees with what you want to believe that can do a lot of hand-waving to reach "absolute certainty" of reality.

I can think of five possible ways to account for the correlation... there, of course, could be others.
You seem to be arguing for 1 while I lean toward 4.

1. It is simply thousands of years of continuous coincidences.
2. Earth's climate effects solar activity.
3. There is a, as yet unknown, cause that effects both solar activity and Earth's climate.
4. Solar activity has an effect on Earth's climate.
5. Max Plank faked their solar study as a prank.
Some of these can obviously be ignored as absurd even though addressing the question, others not.

ETA:
It just hit me that you seem to think that I am arguing that solar activity is the ONLY climate driver. Hardly... there are several climate drivers, some known and quite possibly some not yet known. The problem is to try to understand the relative effect of each of the drivers at any given period of time.

I honestly don’t understand your response. There is clearly a correlation that has lasted for a long time. Neither I nor the papers I cited disagree with that. However that correlation is broken after 1970 and the researchers determined that the most likely reason for that is that the presence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases becomes the dominant cause for the recent steep rise of global temperatures. They’ve even quantified that as per the quoted text. If you have a problem with the papers I cited you can read them and argue specific points, but the second paper I cited was actually a source for the information *you* linked to in the first place, so I don’t understand your issue with it.

I don’t know what you’re arguing for, now. I have said already a couple of times that solar activity is a climate driver and cited papers that attest to that, including the paper you effectively cited, too. I am just saying that climate scientists don’t believe that solar activity is driving the current spate of warming. It seemed in your first post that you were implying it might be because it has in the past and that’s why you linked to the MP news article. I’m sorry if that’s an incorrect interpretation of your original post.

And I don’t believe that I said or presented anything as “absolute certainty”.
I am saying that there are several climate drivers effecting the climate at the same time. CO2 has became more prominent but that doesn't mean that solar activity stopped being a major driver. The fact (according to Max Planck) that we are currently experiencing the greatest period of solar activity in the last 8000 years should mean that solar activity should have more effect on climate than it did previously. Yes, CO2 is likely a responsible driver for our current high global temperatures but then the exceptional level of solar activity is also a likely driver... both together is a double whammy. And then there may be even more drivers that contribute either positively or negatively... like the increased volcanism, planetary albedo, aerosols, etc.

The start of the scree was rebutting the popular idea that CO2 is the sole driver of climate change.

Ok, the issue is with the word “activity”. I looked up the Nature paper and see that they mean number of sunspots, which is a measure of magnetic activity. This is not the same as total solar irradiance. In order to compare the potential effect of magnetic activity on Earth’s climate, the authors attempted to reconstruct the sunspot record beyond the data obtained from direct measurement — about four centuries worth — using radiocarbon techniques. With a longer timescale comparisons to climatic records are possible.

They do indeed find that in recent years it appears there is more activity, as determined from this methodology, than historically. However, they also say this in their abstract (with more detail in the text):

Solanki et al. Nature 431 said:
Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.

With that last part being referenced to the other paper i mentioned in my earlier post.

I don’t think you’ll find any climate scientist saying that greenhouse gases are the only driver of climate change. These authors don’t say that. But they will say that they believe that greenhouse gases are the main driver of the recent warming.

Perhaps there is some connection between solar activity as measured by sunspot number and climate trends but these authors don’t make that claim nor propose any mechanism for it. They don’t even try to directly correlate their results with historical warming trends. It would appear to me that this paper is primarily a demonstration of a new technique for reconstructing sunspot numbers prior to direct measurements. The potential comparison to climate impacts is at best speculative in this paper.
 
(On the matter of CO2's contribution to heating: I thought the direct effect of that green-house molecule on radiative forcing was fairly well calibrated. No?)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Gizmodo said:
This summer’s wheat woes are a look into how crop yields may start to sputter more regularly, even as agriculture makes technological advancements. Ortiz-Bobea coauthored a study published in Nature Climate Change earlier this year that found that climate change has already made global farming productivity 21% lower than it could have been—the equivalent of making no improvements in productivity for seven years.
 
In te 19th century there was a short cooling causing crop failures in Europe and North America. In modern times ir was traced back to a volcano. Particles in the atmosphere.

Nuclear Winter became a term in the 60s-70s. At one point people thought a full scale nuclear war was survivable.

According to the UN food production is already dropping globally. A govt report in the 90s predicted the La area woud run out of water in about 40-50nyeras and the US will cease to be a net food exporter.
 
A govt report in the 90s predicted the La area woud run out of water in about 40-50nyeras.
That is not a very surprising prediction. The LA area is a desert and there are something like twenty million people living there. Three times that number could live on the northern peninsula of Michigan and would have more water available than than they could possibly use. Apparently few people want to live where there is plenty water but love living in a desert where there is little rain and a lot of sun for them to enjoy.
 
A govt report in the 90s predicted the La area woud run out of water in about 40-50nyeras.
That is not a very surprising prediction. The LA area is a desert and there are something like twenty million people living there. Three times that number could live on the northern peninsula of Michigan and would have more water available than than they could possibly use. Apparently few people want to live where there is plenty water but love living in a desert where there is little rain and a lot of sun for them to enjoy.

Nobody listens.

I was taking to a stae cop I met about gawkers slowing down on the highway at an accicet creating a jam.h
He said "You don't understand, individually people are smart, collectively they are like sheep".
 
(On the matter of CO2's contribution to heating: I thought the direct effect of that green-house molecule on radiative forcing was fairly well calibrated. No?)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Gizmodo said:
This summer’s wheat woes are a look into how crop yields may start to sputter more regularly, even as agriculture makes technological advancements. Ortiz-Bobea coauthored a study published in Nature Climate Change earlier this year that found that climate change has already made global farming productivity 21% lower than it could have been—the equivalent of making no improvements in productivity for seven years.

Direct, yes, but there's a lot of secondary effects that are much harder to calibrate. Some add (warmer = more water vapor in the air, water is a greenhouse gas), some subtract (warmer = more water vapor in the air = more clouds reflecting sunlight back into space.)
 
Chaotic systems. Causal but variables impossible to accurately quantify.

Simulations accurate only in the near term. Small errors in the initial conditions grow over time.
 
A govt report in the 90s predicted the La area woud run out of water in about 40-50nyeras.
That is not a very surprising prediction. The LA area is a desert and there are something like twenty million people living there. Three times that number could live on the northern peninsula of Michigan and would have more water available than than they could possibly use. Apparently few people want to live where there is plenty water but love living in a desert where there is little rain and a lot of sun for them to enjoy.

You would think that something this obvious would register. It probably does but is ignored because it doesn't suit the climate emergency/crisis/apocalypse agenda. We have millions and millions of people living in SoCal in houses with lawns that need watered every day for eight/nine months of the year, all flushing the toilet every day, taking showers etc. We have golf courses, vine yards, almond trees and massive agriculture that can only thrive thanks to irrigation and drawing on a quite scarce resource, water. And of course, the democratically controlled state of California has not invested in infrastructure such as reservoirs to increase water capacity. No, we got a multi billion dollar "high speed" rail project that goes from one shit hole to another shit hole because "climate".

Climate change, it really is a rapture like cult.
 
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2021/07/heres-what-climate-scientists-are-really-saying-about-this-catastrophic-summer/?utm_source=mj-newsletters&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-newsletter-07-19-2021


By all accounts, the climate crisis is already here. Deadly heat domes across the Pacific Northwest, a petroleum pipeline leak in the middle of the ocean that set the Gulf of Mexico on fire, and the devastating collapse of a Florida condominium in the past few weeks alone have proven that the world is changing in response to how we have changed it.

No one should be surprised by this. For decades, scientists have been ringing the alarm bell about anthropogenic climate change. Over 30 years ago, NASA scientist James Hansen told the U.S. Congress that the “greenhouse effect is here.” And long before then, in the 1800s, scientists like Svante Arrhenius calculated that doubling the amount of CO2 that was in the atmosphere in 1895 would lead to global warming of 5 to 6 degrees Celsius in average global temperatures. “That wasn’t too far off,” said Peter Kalmus, a climate scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, speaking on his own behalf. It was just that Arrhenius’s timeframe for how quickly humans would emit those gasses was way off, Kalmus added: “It only took about 125 years for that increase in CO2 fraction that he thought would take 3000 years. He grossly underestimated the rate of emissions from burning fossil fuels that we actually did.”

Arrhenius’s original prediction represents a lot of the current problems faced by climate change models. Understanding where we are on the climate change timeline requires multiple steps—we need to know how much greenhouse gas has been emitted, how much those greenhouse gases have increased the global temperature, and then finally, we need to take one last step that even Arrhenius never took—we need to understand how those changes in global temperature will affect the climate we experience. It’s this last bit that is trickiest—we know the current proportion of carbon in our atmosphere (currently around 420 parts per million), what we don’t know is how to accurately predict all the consequences of the temperature increase caused by that extra carbon.


Denialists kind of remind of the line from "The Boxer"....."a man believes what he wants to believe and disregards the rest".....
 
https://www.motherjones.com/environ...mail&utm_campaign=daily-newsletter-07-19-2021


By all accounts, the climate crisis is already here. Deadly heat domes across the Pacific Northwest, a petroleum pipeline leak in the middle of the ocean that set the Gulf of Mexico on fire, and the devastating collapse of a Florida condominium in the past few weeks alone have proven that the world is changing in response to how we have changed it.
*pause*

Ocean level rise didn't cause that building to collapse. It was likely the impact of insufficient dewatering of salt water causing corrosion over a period of four decades. People need to be cautious when connecting dots that poorly.
 
https://www.motherjones.com/environ...mail&utm_campaign=daily-newsletter-07-19-2021


By all accounts, the climate crisis is already here. Deadly heat domes across the Pacific Northwest, a petroleum pipeline leak in the middle of the ocean that set the Gulf of Mexico on fire, and the devastating collapse of a Florida condominium in the past few weeks alone have proven that the world is changing in response to how we have changed it.
*pause*

Ocean level rise didn't cause that building to collapse. It was likely the impact of insufficient dewatering of salt water causing corrosion over a period of four decades. People need to be cautious when connecting dots that poorly.

One shouldn't trust Mother Jones to give accurate information on this kind of topic. They have a strong left bias, which contrary to many beliefs here, doesn't mean "truth". People are getting a little out of hand these days with attributing things to "climate change". Kamala Harris said one of the reasons people are leaving Central America to come to the US is "because of climate change". Proof?
 
*pause*

Ocean level rise didn't cause that building to collapse. It was likely the impact of insufficient dewatering of salt water causing corrosion over a period of four decades. People need to be cautious when connecting dots that poorly.

One shouldn't trust Mother Jones to give accurate information on this kind of topic. They have a strong left bias, which contrary to many beliefs here, doesn't mean "truth". People are getting a little out of hand these days with attributing things to "climate change". Kamala Harris said one of the reasons people are leaving Central America to come to the US is "because of climate change". Proof?

This. Climate had nothing to do with the collapse. Salt water is horribly corrosive over time. Don't keep it out, it's going to eat things.
 
Back
Top Bottom